It has been pointed out some relation of religion and art in the humanities. But it seems no argument has got to the heart of the matter. The argument about the relation of religion and art can be called 'discourse on religion-art'. It's needed to reconstruct this discourse. In former arguments, Paul Tillich's that is notable: Having no relation to use traditional religious symbols, if a work of art has come out well to express 'ultimate reality', it's religious art. Tillich's 'ultimate reality'can be considered as religiousness. It's considered the religiousness of art appears at the crossing of religion and art. By the arguments of Susumu Shimazono and Ken'ichi Sasaki, comparing the characters of salvation religion, beauty and art, it has got following four common features. That's the substance of the religiousness of art: 1. Not whole religion but mysticism as a dimension of religion corresponds to the main character of beauty, ecstasy, intuition, impossibility to express quite. 2. Religion and art have a common character of intending to transcend the established order and to construct a counterorder. The religion's character of a shelter from the established order doesn't correspond to the art in an individual but to in a collective. 3. Religion and art have a common character of observing closely and responding to the sufferings of the life of human beings. 4. Brotherly ethic, as the most important characteristic of religious behavior, may be said to have some correspondences in the collective aspects of art. But unlike religion, art does not attempt to secure a collective basis for transcending the order of the secular.論文/Articles